What do you have???

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

This is not incidental contact.

Why not?

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Going frame by frame you are able to see that the defender was moving.

Whether he was moving is not relevant. Once he establishes legal guarding position, he can move laterally or backwards. It only takes a split second to establish LGP before he can continue moving.

Did he ever get two feet on the floor, in front of the shooter, before the shooter leapt?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Would you say the same (that a no-call is "acceptable") if the contact was straight on, significant, with no hint of a flop and multiple bodies flying but was so close that it took a frame-by-frame to be sure about who was responsible? I just can't subscribe to no-calling something because it is hard to tell who is responsible if it is clear that some foul should be called (defender was there or they weren't). I'm going to go with my instinct and call something. It may be wrong, but I think its worse for the game to do nothing.

This is the part I agreed with you about. In this case, it's a must-whistle play, even if no one gets hurt. And sell the he!! out of it, whichever call you make.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Because the camera has a straightline angle and is taken from, what, 90 feet away? If it was HD, you might have solid evidence one way or the other. In the absence of a clear video, my thought is to defer to the official who was standing less than 10 feet away.

As blurry and bad as the video quality is, it is more than adequate, when viewed frame-by-frame, to establish that the defender was moving sideways after the shooter jumped. No HD needed. Regardless of the resolution, motion relative to fixed points on the wall/bleachers is pretty visible.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul. Could you please reference some plays in which the defense is penalized even when the defender is completely legal in which the pros penalize the defender?

The mere fact that there is a RA around the basket is conclusive proof that the pro game favors the offense. Is there anywhere on the court that the call goes against the offense BY RULE? Nope.
I'm sure that if Yao Ming or Tim Duncan stood one foot in front of the rim with his arms held straight up that his defense could be pretty effective and deter opponents from dunking. Of course, the way the NBA rules are written if the offensive player recklessly runs down the lane and crashes into this stationary defender the foul is on the DEFENDER!!!
Why? The guy is doing nothing illegal other than being in a certain area of the court which the league has designated as off-limits.
You want another example of a league rule that favors the offense?
How about the league used to ban zone defense, and now has a DEFENSIVE three-second violation!!! The defenders cannot play whereever they wish. They have to move away from the basket to provide the offense with a better opportunity to score.
What else favors high-scoring games...hmmm....could it be a 24-second shot clock? No team can slow down the tempo and hold the ball. The team must attack or lose the ball.
Yep, the league wants POINTS. The league wants OFFENSE.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Do you know the reasoning behind why the NCAA wants either blocks or charges on close plays called or do they say? We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. believes that high-flying dunks sell tickets.

Since you are being awfully naive, I fixed it for you. I've already stated how someone could play "legitimate" defense from that area. The rule has NOTHING to do with defense. It has to do with dollars. The idea was to clear space in the lane, which the big guys were clogging up, to allow the wing players to slash to the goal for highlight-reel dunks. That is what the NBA desires--plain and simple. No dunks = No fans = No money.
Defenders in that area of the court could stop a lot of dunks, draw a ton of charges, and greatly deter the opponents from attacking the rim. So the NBA banned it.
You even admit that the NBA does not want a jump shooting contest. Too bad, because some of us believe that is the most beautiful part of the game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why not?

Whether he was moving is not relevant. Once he establishes legal guarding position, he can move laterally or backwards. It only takes a split second to establish LGP before he can continue moving.

Did he ever get two feet on the floor, in front of the shooter, before the shooter leapt?

Yes, he did get two feet down in front of the shooter and had LGP but he also continued drifting sideways (more into the path of the shooter) after the shooter jumped.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

mu4scott,

You can break down the video 8 different ways that still does not change my original point on this. It is not clear there was much or any contact. You are looking at the back of the shooter and you do not see how much or if there was any space between the two players. Once again the player seemed to fall straight down, not bouncing off the defender and falling. The official in the video appeared to be in a better position than the video gives us. And to suggest that there has to be foul call on this without a better angle, suggests to me that you have not seen enough plays like this in your career, or you call the game based solely on what something looks like. I tend to not like to guess on plays like this. If I am not sure, I would rather pass on a play than call something completely wrong. And if there was a lot of contact with the defender, the defender would have fallen differently than he did in this video. Players that make hard contact do not fall with their feet relatively in the same place as in this play. So unless you have a different angle, I stand by my original point of view on this and use my experience to decide what I feel should or should not be called. I do not need anyone to convince me otherwise. I break down video all the time and this is not a very good video to make solid and definitive decisions based on what this shows.

Peace

I understand your comment about the defender falling as he did. Now what about the offensive player falling as he did? He can't magically check his hips out like that without some opposing force pushing on them. visual cues can aid you greatly in accuracy in play calling and this is one of those visual cues.

secondly I would like to ask the question why are you still talking about the defender and how he landed? i like that you used another visual cue here and it does look like he flops a little, but the defender is no longer our sole problem once the kid is airborne. we have to first determine if the defender is legal or illegal. In this case I would say most ppl have said he was illegal and with that being the case we now have to see if his illegal movement or positioning and subsequent contact, whether it be slight or not, hindered the offensive player from completing a natural basketball play or movement? If you take that criterion and still say no to it then fine I'm ok with that, but I believe you would be wrong in just saying that it was minimal contact and on that basis alone you don't have a foul for that reason, solely.

I would like to say this is my opinion, but under the assumption that the said player is illegal then he is what he is, illegal! Therefore, barring any overt move by the offensive player, the onus is on the defender to be legal and any subsequent contact hindering a player from completing a natural, athletic basketball move or play should be deemed a foul.

sidenote: if this offensive player lands straight on his feet or iow completing his move and in my judgement he was not hindered by this contact, then I would no call this play. At the same time if he lands on his feet and i feel he was unable to complete his move I would still have a whistle.

Gotta love this job! Not always so black and white!

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why not?

Whether he was moving is not relevant. Once he establishes legal guarding position, he can move laterally or backwards. It only takes a split second to establish LGP before he can continue moving.

Did he ever get two feet on the floor, in front of the shooter, before the shooter leapt?

Breaking it down screen by screen you can clearly see the defender moving into the path of the airborne shooter while he is in the air. Also I don't see why his two feet being on the ground would be definitive of it being one way or the other. What if he had two feet planted and was leaning w/ his body into the shooter?

As far as the "incidental contact" part goes that can be debated. I'm sure most contact on the court is incidental, but it's still a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Breaking it down screen by screen you can clearly see the defender moving into the path of the airborne shooter while he is in the air. Also I don't see why his two feet being on the ground would be definitive of it being one way or the other. What if he had two feet planted and was leaning w/ his body into the shooter?

For now, I'll take your word for it. My point stands, however. Here are the options I see:
1. Blocking foul.
2. no-call.

Since a frame-by-frame analysis is required to determine which way to go, the "wrong" call is acceptable, IMO.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

As far as the "incidental contact" part goes that can be debated. I'm sure most contact on the court is incidental, but it's still a foul.

Some might consider this statement absurd.
It cannot be incidental and a foul. It's one or the other.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Whether he was moving is not relevant. Once he establishes legal guarding position, he can move laterally or backwards. It only takes a split second to establish LGP before he can continue moving.

Did he ever get two feet on the floor, in front of the shooter, before the shooter leapt?

Actually, Snaqs, it is relevant.
What you say is only for defending an opponent who is touching the court.

Once the opponent goes airborne (both feet off the floor), the defender cannot move in any direction. He doesn't have to be a statue. Some arm or body movement is acceptable because he is a human being and not a robot, but he certainly cannot move his feet to a new location.

Of course, I still believe that the defender got to his spot in time. Pictures 4 and 5 as posted by mu4scott are the critical ones.

In Frame 4 the defender has arrived at his final location, has two feet on the floor, and is facing the opponent. One cannot tell for sure because the official's head is in the way, but it is my opinion that the offensive player's left foot is still in contact with the floor at this time.

That's all that we need to establish to know that the defender's position is legal. As soon as the opponent's left foot leaves the floor the defender cannot move from that spot on the court. He can move his body, arms, head, etc., as long as he remains in that location. That is what I see in Frame 5. I do not see the defender moving to a new spot on the court. I see him fall backwards with his body to cushion/lessen the impending blow from the offensive player who clearly jumps into him. Whether there is enough contact to warrant a charge or not is up for debate, but no way can this be a block because the action of the defender was legal per the rules.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Some might consider this statement absurd.
It cannot be incidental and a foul. It's one or the other.

Huh?? Maybe we are not on the same page as far as the word "incidental" is being described. I can think of many instances where a player was called for a foul that was 'incidental".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

What if he had two feet planted and was leaning w/ his body into the shooter?

Is the offensive player leaning with his body? If you are going to penalize the defender for leaning, then you better also penalize the offensive player for the same action.

Who is moving into the opponent--the offensive player or the defender?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Huh?? Maybe we are not on the same page as far as the word "incidental" is being described. I can think of many instances where a player was called for a foul that was 'incidental".

You mean ACCIDENTAL, not incidental. That's the problem.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The mere fact that there is a RA around the basket is conclusive proof that the pro game favors the offense. Is there anywhere on the court that the call goes against the offense BY RULE? Nope.
I'm sure that if Yao Ming or Tim Duncan stood one foot in front of the rim with his arms held straight up that his defense could be pretty effective and deter opponents from dunking. Of course, the way the NBA rules are written if the offensive player recklessly runs down the lane and crashes into this stationary defender the foul is on the DEFENDER!!!
Why? The guy is doing nothing illegal other than being in a certain area of the court which the league has designated as off-limits.
You want another example of a league rule that favors the offense?
How about the league used to ban zone defense, and now has a DEFENSIVE three-second violation!!! The defenders cannot play whereever they wish. They have to move away from the basket to provide the offense with a better opportunity to score.
What else favors high-scoring games...hmmm....could it be a 24-second shot clock? No team can slow down the tempo and hold the ball. The team must attack or lose the ball.
Yep, the league wants POINTS. The league wants OFFENSE.
Since you are being awfully naive, I fixed it for you. I've already stated how someone could play "legitimate" defense from that area. The rule has NOTHING to do with defense. It has to do with dollars. The idea was to clear space in the lane, which the big guys were clogging up, to allow the wing players to slash to the goal for highlight-reel dunks. That is what the NBA desires--plain and simple. No dunks = No fans = No money.
Defenders in that area of the court could stop a lot of dunks, draw a ton of charges, and greatly deter the opponents from attacking the rim. So the NBA banned it.
You even admit that the NBA does not want a jump shooting contest. Too bad, because some of us believe that is the most beautiful part of the game.

Sorry but not even tim or yao could keep an NBA! player from dunking if he is just STANDING in front of the rim. These guys are pure athletes. The best in basketball! Now it is still legal if tim or yao jumps vertically while being in the RA. The jumping cleanses them from the play being reffed as an RA block/charge.

I was not talking about "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy in terms of rules that have been put in place. someone was mentioning it in regards to fouls and how we always attempt to favor the offense on those plays.

Your accusations are correct. We want a lot of slashing, cutting/driving to the basket, and freedom of movement in our game which is more condusive to higher scoring games. The NBA made rules to aid in this.

you're right, a defender is not allowed to be in the RA, nor is a defender allowed to be in the paint without actively guarding somebody for more than 3seconds, its just like stepping out of bounds, you are not allowed to do it.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You mean ACCIDENTAL, not incidental. That's the problem.

From dictionary.com

Incidental - happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.

Accidental - happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.


What's the difference?

[Adam]

The difference is "incidental" contact is directly defined in the rule book, and it specifically states that incidental contact is not a foul.

"Accidental" is not relevant.